Allowed

Pappu Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jan 2025BAIL/1771/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application of Pappu Sharma accused of offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Court held bail is rule and jail exception, noting lack of exceptional circumstances to deny liberty while keeping trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of attending trial proceedings and not tampering with evidence.

Pappu Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9833

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1771 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Pappu Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Nandini Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice to the informant has been served on 15.1.2025.

¶8

Heard Ms. Nandini Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2024, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police StationKotwali, District- Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶11

The applicant is stated to have enticed away the daughter of the informant in the night of 8.3.2024, as such, she had mixed the sleeping pills in the food, although, he woke up in between and found her missing.

¶12

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶13

The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶14

The FIR is delayed by about three days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶15

The victim is a consenting party as is but evident from the fact that FIR itself indicates that she had mixed sleeping pills in the food of the informant. The consent of the victim is also evident

¶16

from her statement recorded U/s 164 Cr.P.C.

¶17

As per the school certificate, the date of birth of the victim is stated to be 5.9.2007, as such, her age comes out to be 16 years, 08 months and 07 days, although, by her looks she seems to be major.

¶18

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶19

There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.7.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶20

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶21

The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed.

¶22

CONCLUSION:

¶23

The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 has stated that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282 , this Court, inter alia, observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed.

¶24

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶25

The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

¶26

A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 .

¶27

Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception” .

¶28

Learned AGA could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶29

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶31

Let the applicant- Pappu Sharma involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶32

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶33

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C./351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶34

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶35

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶36

Order Date :- 21.1.2025 Vikas

¶37

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶38

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pappu Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sueb vs State of U.P.

Nishant Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Vineeta vs State of U.P.

Harinaam Kori vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Yadav Alias Saurav vs State of U.P.

Anshuman Singh vs State of U.P.